[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by unclebilly

Higgins - you are out to lunch on this.

The business has to offer a safe experience for their customers.

And they do, so long as their employees act in a manner approved by the company.

Originally Posted by unclebilly

The only way out, (and likely not a get out of jail free card), is if they had signage that it wasn’t safe for little old white ladies to go there and made customers sign a waiver due to inherent risks with their employees inability to control their tempers.

We all know that is patently absurd.

Originally Posted by unclebilly

Think of it like a shark dive charter. The customers understand the risks and sign a waiver. In this case, it’s absurd to think you might get the sheeet kicked out of you by the staff at a fast food restaurant and that’s ok...

What a horribly absurd comparison. You are clearly grasping at straws to even suggest such a comparison. What a completely illogical line of reasoning, to try to somehow compare shark diving to getting a chicken sandwich.

Originally Posted by unclebilly

No judge or jury will side with Popeyes not bearing responsibility on this one. They failed to offer a safe experience for their customer and in fact did just the opposite.

You are still avoiding the questions I asked regarding this very issue, which is central to this situation. So, again, I ask:

So, those of you touting Popeye's responsibility for this are, by insinuation, asserting that Popeye's was negligent in preventing this man from attacking this woman. You are asserting that Popeye's failed to do something. Please, then, explain what that "something" might be. Something tangible - some area in which Popeye's clearly failed. Something you would put in place, in your own business, to prevent an employee from doing something similar.

Originally Posted by Alan A

Tell that to Walmart the next time an employee unlawfully detains a person who refuses to show a receipt. They may hire you as a lawyer.

If Walmart has indeed instructed their greeters to detain customers who refuse to show receipts, then Walmart is absolutely liable for that greeter's actions.

Popeye's, of course, very likely did not instruct employees to beat the hell out of customers demanding a refund. That would be my guess, anyway.

Certainly, you must see the difference.

Originally Posted by biosurfer1

That is what you said. You said anyone doing something outside a companies policy is no longer the responsibility of the company.

No, it was not. That is not at all what I said. Here is our exchange:

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Absolutely for real. No way on earth is a company responsible for the criminal behavior of an employee, unless it can be shown that employee was acting at the behest of the company. In this case, he clearly was not.

Originally Posted by biosurfer1

In your world companies could easily say any employee doing anything illegal is outside their policy and they are no longer responsible.

I said a company should not be held responsible for the criminal behavior of its employees.

Originally Posted by biosurfer1

You think Walmarts policy was for drivers to drive tired or overworked? Of course not, in fact their policy is very clear how much rest a driver should get. If that doesn't happen, doesn't mean the company is off the hook by simply pointing to the policy.

I said if Walmart was responsible for the driver's lack of rest, as is making him drive too much or too often, that they would be absolutely responsible. I likewise said that if the driver was personally responsible for his lack of rest, or had withheld a pertinent medical condition that led to his drowsiness, then it would be entirely his responsibility.

Originally Posted by biosurfer1

Someone under cooks the meat at Chipotle and kills a couple dozen with salmonella, in your world the company simply points to cooking policy saying to fully cook the meat and what, that means they are not responsible?

In this case, Chipotle's gave instructions to their cooks but failed to follow up with any sort of supervision, process controls, quality control, or anything at all to ensure that their instructions were being followed. So, yes, in their case, they are entirely liable.

You are very quick to tell me what I think, to tell me how things are in "my world". Yet it is abundantly clear you have not understood a word I have said. You are assigning positions to me that I do not hold - we call those "straw man" arguments. You are simply arguing with some persona of me which you have created for yourself.

So, let's follow your Chipotle's example, and answer my questions in that context. Chipotle's failed to ensure compliance with their stated processes. How, in this case, would Popeye's have ensured compliance to their company policy (stated or inferred) against beating the hell out of customers? And, once again, I ask you to answer the following:

So, those of you touting Popeye's responsibility for this are, by insinuation, asserting that Popeye's was negligent in preventing this man from attacking this woman. You are asserting that Popeye's failed to do something. Please, then, explain what that "something" might be. Something tangible - some area in which Popeye's clearly failed. Something you would put in place, in your own business, to prevent an employee from doing something similar.